Theodore Wafer will do at least 17 years.

[mam2009]

Thank you mam.

You're welcome!

[Downriviera]

Please, oh, please explain to me how a woman with no weapon and no break-in tools would break into a locked house??????????????

I wasn't home but a neighbor watched my ex girlfriend break through my door in less than five minutes. The screen door was locked and the steel storm door had a lock and a dead bolt. She had no breakin tools and was 5' 10 and weighed about 115. If you're desperate to get through a door or window you can, its not that hard.

Anytime a young person dies at the hands of someone older emotions are high. Even more so when they are of a different race. You're typing in bold and caps show this. I respect everyones thoughts and opinions on this tragedy, I really do. But it seems there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking and after the fact responses. Everyone knows whats reasonable and unreasonable and what should have been done and what they would do. But none of us were in his shoes at that moment. He reacted badly and it was stupid to open the door. But sometimes people react badly and do stupid things when they are half asleep and scared. Sorry if I feel some compassion for this guy. He was asleep and not looking for trouble.

And please don't bring the sprint car incident into this. I worked on a race team and we lost a driver.

[Zacha341]

Interesting points. I know I've never argued that she was 'not' trying to get in... He should have waiting until she did. And as someone else mentioned standing in front of a door is a problem if you have a criminal geared to shoot YOU thru your own door! Stand at the side of the door if you must or feel you want to clarify the persons intention or see if it is someone you know.

As it stands in this case we'll never know her actual motive for knocking or banging. We only know how he reacted to it.

A ballistics expert testified that the damage to the door was caused by her and not the gun. Coroner testified that injuries to her hands were from banging on the doors. If she wasn't trying to get into the house what do you think she was doing? Don't say knocking on the door for help. She refused help at the accident scene and never called for help. Again, strong evidence that she thought this was her house and was trying to get in. The guy thought it was a home invasion. They were both tragically wrong. All he had to do was wait till she got in the house. The result would have been the same tragedy because she wasn't there to harm him or steal his belonging, she was just trying to get home to avoid police and the DUI. But he would have been innocent.

[rb336]

A ballistics expert testified that the damage to the door was caused by her and not the gun. Coroner testified that injuries to her hands were from banging on the doors. If she wasn't trying to get into the house what do you think she was doing? Don't say knocking on the door for help. She refused help at the accident scene and never called for help. Again, strong evidence that she thought this was her house and was trying to get in. The guy thought it was a home invasion. They were both tragically wrong. All he had to do was wait till she got in the house. The result would have been the same tragedy because she wasn't there to harm him or steal his belonging, she was just trying to get home to avoid police and the DUI. But he would have been innocent.

do you have a transcript of the trial? I didn't here either the "ballistics expert" or the testimony about hand injuries [[irrelevant anyway. go knock on a door for 5 minutes and see what your knuckles look like - and if the door was damaged by someone repeatedly knocking [[I'll take wafer's first pre-lawyer-spin statement about that), it must be a cheap damn door

[Downriviera]

do you have a transcript of the trial? I didn't here either the "ballistics expert" or the testimony about hand injuries [[irrelevant anyway. go knock on a door for 5 minutes and see what your knuckles look like - and if the door was damaged by someone repeatedly knocking [[I'll take wafer's first pre-lawyer-spin statement about that), it must be a cheap damn door

No I do not have a transcript of the trial. I saw the testimony on the news. You can probably see it on ch 7 website.

[Wesley Mouch]

Interesting points. I know I've never argued that she was 'not' trying to get in... He should have waiting until she did. And as someone else mentioned standing in front of a door is a problem if you have a criminal geared to shoot YOU thru your own door! Stand at the side of the door if you must or feel you want to clarify the persons intention or see if it is someone you know.

As it stands in this case we'll never know her actual motive for knocking or banging. We only know how he reacted to it.

Suggest you spend some quality time with a mad woman on serious drugs and alcohol. Waiting is a risky game. Wait, and you may be the dead one. Wafer can at least be grateful that he's alive.

[EastsideAl]

Suggest you spend some quality time with a mad woman on serious drugs and alcohol. Waiting is a risky game. Wait, and you may be the dead one. Wafer can at least be grateful that he's alive.

You persist in being absolutely ridiculous. These was absolutely zero evidence that she was trying to or intended to harm him. None. Knocking on a door too hard for someone's liking or comfort does not constitute an attempt to harm someone's person. That's the reason his self-defense defense failed, and the reason why he was convicted.

But some will always blame the victim I guess. Particularly, it seems, if he/she had a "suspicious" and/or inherently frightening complexion.

[canuck]

Suggest you spend some quality time with a mad woman on serious drugs and alcohol. Waiting is a risky game. Wait, and you may be the dead one. Wafer can at least be grateful that he's alive.

Your lack of reasoning is superlatively efficient, Wesley. You can't be beat at that level of convoluted thought.

You concluded in earlier posts that Wafer had indeed committed a stupid and grave error in the sequence of events that lead to her death. You even pleaded for lower standards in handing out a sentence because you think that somehow he should not be held accountable because he was scared.

What don't you get about waiting and phoning the police?

The police would have taken the girl in. She would have had to answer for driving drunk and crashing her car, and she would also be grateful for being alive.

Instead, he shot her in the face. You can't be more final than that.

[Zacha341]

^^^ I was thinking that when I decided NOT to respond.

Wanna spend some time with someone who does not know the status of their firearm?

TO restate once more [[for the record) in Michigan we DO have the right to bear arms in our homes, but you just can't shoot out your door free style without even verifying the threat. And as I wrote he could have been shot first, thru his own the door.

Call the cops [[911) not because the are so right or will arrive timely, but to put a 'sequence' stamp on the event. Then hold up at the ready to see and then use lethal response if needed. Wafer was not tactically/ or practically trained or he would not have been so ambiguous about rather his weapon was EVEN loaded in the first place as his story evolved. Duh.

If he knew the true Art of War he would have truly protected himself on multiple levels. Which is not necessarily to strike first, but self control and knowledge as the supreme asset.

[Downriviera]

You persist in being absolutely ridiculous. These was absolutely zero evidence that she was trying to or intended to harm him. None. Knocking on a door too hard for someone's liking or comfort does not constitute an attempt to harm someone's person. That's the reason his self-defense defense failed, and the reason why he was convicted.

But some will always blame the victim I guess. Particularly, it seems, if he/she had a "suspicious" and/or inherently frightening complexion.

More Monday morning quarterbacking. We all know after the fact that she was not trying to harm him. There is zero evidence that he knew this at the time. I respect your opinion that she was knocking loudly but will disagree. I'm going to believe the testimony of the coroner and firearms expert that she was doing more than just loudly knocking. I'm giving him the benefit of doubt and will believe his testimony that the pounding on the doors and windows was so loud that his floor shook and he thought his home was being broken into. His self defense failed because he shot her on the porch. There's an old saying that if you shoot someone outside your home you better drag the body in the house. I agree that he acted totally improperly. I don't agree that he had no reason to be afraid.

[Wesley Mouch]

Your lack of reasoning is superlatively efficient, Wesley. You can't be beat at that level of convoluted thought.

You concluded in earlier posts that Wafer had indeed committed a stupid and grave error in the sequence of events that lead to her death. You even pleaded for lower standards in handing out a sentence because you think that somehow he should not be held accountable because he was scared.

What don't you get about waiting and phoning the police?

The police would have taken the girl in. She would have had to answer for driving drunk and crashing her car, and she would also be grateful for being alive.

Instead, he shot her in the face. You can't be more final than that.

Glad you appreciate my posts.

What don't I get about wait and phone? I think I get it. Great idea. But when reality hits, you don't have the luxury of hindsight that you have in expecting perfect behavior from Wafer.

I can easily see how a reasonable person might hear the noise, grab their gun, go by the door, hear the noise, realize someone's in trouble and confused, open the door, be confronted by a crazy person who is threatening and now has the ability to come inside and cause you harm within 1 second. I don't think this happened, but you don't know that it didn't. Reasonable doubt. That's all that I need. If there's a reasonable doubt, then I think we owe Wafer that doubt -- no matter how bad his lawyer was or how bad his statements to cops were. We give that benefit of doubt to all. Criminals, drunk girls who endanger others, white and black alike. Once upon a time the system often didn't give that doubt to blacks. We just found them guilty by race. I hope we're better today. And we don't judge either this young lady nor Wafer on the basis of their race. We will give the the benefit of doubt. And I see lots of doubt sauce on this.

So Wafer should've turned his back on her and got the phone? Nice theory. But a pretty high standard to apply when you're life is being threatened.

But then I thought the officers who beat Rodney King deserved more doubt too. A police office [[or security guard or homeowner) sometimes has a decision to make. Do I risk my life and limb to give this crazy person 100% benefit of the doubt? Or is there a point where my life and limb is more important than the crazy's right to threaten, intimidate, and invade my personal space with potentially deadly or very harmful force? These are tough decisions. Your statement that you know what he should have done doesn't work for me. Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Real world messier.

[bailey]

So Wafer should've turned his back on her and got the phone? Nice theory. But a pretty high standard to apply when you're life is being threatened.

at no point during the entire evening was his life being threatened, his acute paranoia about his neighborhood and the rowdy teens that paint-balled his car notwithstanding....

His perception of danger was UNREASONABLE. end of analysis of self defense. guilty as charged.

What don't I get about wait and phone? I think I get it. Great idea. But when reality hits, you don't have the luxury of hindsight that you have in expecting perfect behavior from Wafe

No one is expecting "perfect behavior" from Wafer. The LAW expects him to deploy his firearms in a REASONABLE manner. He failed to do so.

[corktownyuppie]

Glad you appreciate my posts.

What don't I get about wait and phone? I think I get it. Great idea. But when reality hits, you don't have the luxury of hindsight that you have in expecting perfect behavior from Wafer.

I can easily see how a reasonable person might hear the noise, grab their gun, go by the door, hear the noise, realize someone's in trouble and confused, open the door, be confronted by a crazy person who is threatening and now has the ability to come inside and cause you harm within 1 second. I don't think this happened, but you don't know that it didn't. Reasonable doubt. That's all that I need. If there's a reasonable doubt, then I think we owe Wafer that doubt -- no matter how bad his lawyer was or how bad his statements to cops were. We give that benefit of doubt to all. Criminals, drunk girls who endanger others, white and black alike. Once upon a time the system often didn't give that doubt to blacks. We just found them guilty by race. I hope we're better today. And we don't judge either this young lady nor Wafer on the basis of their race. We will give the the benefit of doubt. And I see lots of doubt sauce on this.

So Wafer should've turned his back on her and got the phone? Nice theory. But a pretty high standard to apply when you're life is being threatened.

But then I thought the officers who beat Rodney King deserved more doubt too. A police office [[or security guard or homeowner) sometimes has a decision to make. Do I risk my life and limb to give this crazy person 100% benefit of the doubt? Or is there a point where my life and limb is more important than the crazy's right to threaten, intimidate, and invade my personal space with potentially deadly or very harmful force? These are tough decisions. Your statement that you know what he should have done doesn't work for me. Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Real world messier.

Perhaps this discussion has met the maximum point of value from the perspective we are taking this. Really helpful people can disagree about where the boundary line is, and it is very clear -- to me, at least -- that this very case has a difficult line to draw. You and I are on different sides of the line. You see reasonable doubt, I am giving him a reluctant conviction.

Perhaps a way to advance the discussion is to post the following question. Where would the line be where you would feel comfortable convicting? Would it be if she had only knocked on one door? What if she was very threatening, but she was threatening from the sidewalk in front of his house? At that point the threat is real, but is he entitled to a sniper shot to prevent her breaching the property boundary?

for me, that line is the entry in to her building. Had she entered the property, or had she even succeeded in breaking a window, I would have thought that self defense was justified. But I certainly do not have a monopoly on the truth. What do you think is the scenario where her self-defense would not have been justified?

I, unlike some of the other posters perhaps, do not think that you are being totally out of line. These questions about fence line shootings, become very complex. If I have reason to believe that my next-door neighbor is planning to have me killed, am I justified in putting a bomb in his car to kill him first? If I am standing at my porch with the door open, and someone runs toward me while verbally threatening me, do I have the right to shoot? Or am I obligated to go inside my house by two steps and close the door?

Certainly, you don't have to do this just to placate me. I am just curious at what point you believe that the self defense argument no longer holds water.

[Wesley Mouch]

Perhaps this discussion has met the maximum point of value from the perspective we are taking this. Really helpful people can disagree about where the boundary line is, and it is very clear -- to me, at least -- that this very case has a difficult line to draw. You and I are on different sides of the line. You see reasonable doubt, I am giving him a reluctant conviction.

Perhaps a way to advance the discussion is to post the following question. Where would the line be where you would feel comfortable convicting? Would it be if she had only knocked on one door? What if she was very threatening, but she was threatening from the sidewalk in front of his house? At that point the threat is real, but is he entitled to a sniper shot to prevent her breaching the property boundary?

for me, that line is the entry in to her building. Had she entered the property, or had she even succeeded in breaking a window, I would have thought that self defense was justified. But I certainly do not have a monopoly on the truth. What do you think is the scenario where her self-defense would not have been justified?

I, unlike some of the other posters perhaps, do not think that you are being totally out of line. These questions about fence line shootings, become very complex. If I have reason to believe that my next-door neighbor is planning to have me killed, am I justified in putting a bomb in his car to kill him first? If I am standing at my porch with the door open, and someone runs toward me while verbally threatening me, do I have the right to shoot? Or am I obligated to go inside my house by two steps and close the door?

Certainly, you don't have to do this just to placate me. I am just curious at what point you believe that the self defense argument no longer holds water.

As usual, CTY, great post that cuts to the core of this issue.

Quick thought... there are two lines, not one line. Certainly there's a standard for determining whether self-defense is justified -- but even more important is a line that determines whether we know enough to convict -- is there reasonable doubt.

The second line concerns me even more. If we knew what happened with certainty, we could all make pretty good determination of whether shooting was justified. The jury convicted, so I assume they have decided they know what happened. It troubles me that Wafer is thus convicted mainly on his own self-incriminating words about what happened. All the evidence about the pounding or damage to screens strikes me as irrelevant. Ms. McBride's actions could be 100% verbal and 100% life-threatening without any physical evidence. Such evidence could corroborate testimony to acquite, but I don't see how lack of evidence proves that this was a benign visit by Ms. McBride that then suggests Mr. Wafer was irresponsible.

[canuck]

And the Oscar for the most convoluted script goes to Wesley Mouch.

[corktownyuppie]

Quick thought... there are two lines, not one line. Certainly there's a standard for determining whether self-defense is justified -- but even more important is a line that determines whether we know enough to convict -- is there reasonable doubt.

Such evidence could corroborate testimony to acquit, but I don't see how lack of evidence proves that this was a benign visit by Ms. McBride that then suggests Mr. Wafer was irresponsible.

I actually think you and I see the facts exactly the same. We both recognize that we don't [[and can't) know exactly what happened. And we also are in agreement that Wafer was right to be alarmed and scared. You then rightfully point out that we know don't know enough to convict.

For a moment, I digress.

When growing up playing baseball, we used to have this informal rule, "Tie Goes to the Runner". If a thrown ball was caught at nearly the same time the runner touched the bag, rather than argue about whether he was safe or out, we just decided that all ties would go to the runner. It wasn't a perfect system, as the next argument became, "how close was close enough to consider it a tie?". But regardless, it set the framework for a resolution.

We have a similar rule in the law, that of reasonable doubt. If we are somewhat confident of wrongdoing but have enough doubt about it, a tie goes toward the defendant. Our system has decided that it is better to let guilty men go free rather than send innocent people to jail, and that is reflected in the rule of reasonable doubt.

I *do* agree with you [[Wesley), that there is reasonable doubt about whether Wafer acted in self-defense. I think it's very difficult to tell based on his testimony and evidence about what really happened. And, as you all already know, I thought the whole thing was an accident -- which is the opposite of self-defense.

But I believe that what follows below is where we differ, and I'm open to some legal education about whether or not I'm interpreting the law correctly.

As I outlined above, a "tie" goes toward the defendant.

However.

I believe that one legal exception here is in the circumstance of self-defense, especially with deadly force [[and even moreso, with a fatality). In this case, I don't believe that the prosecutor has the burden to prove

that this was a benign visit by Ms. McBride that then suggests Mr. Wafer was irresponsible.

I believe the opposite. I believe that once one invokes self-defense -- especially with use of deadly force and an ensuing fatality -- the burden no longer rests on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was irresponsible. I believe that the burden now shifts onto the defendant to prove that the use of deadly force was justified.

I think that's why are on opposite sides of this. My general sense is that for the most part, we think it was a "tie". And yes, I agree that 99% of the time, the ruling on a tie should favor the defendant. But in this instance, I think a tie favors [[and should favor) the prosecution.

I don't want to waste any more time stating my basis for putting the burden on the defendant in a self-defense case, especially because in the end, legal scholars have already pre-determined that for us.

Legal Eagles out there, how is the law applied here? Am I applying the law incorrectly?

One way is that if you were only 50% sure that Wafer acted in self-defense, then reasonable doubt exists, acquit the man. The other way is that if you were only 50% sure that Wafer acted in self-defense, then it was Wafer who failed to meet his burden and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was justified. Convict the man.

You are the judge...please instruct the jury. [[And if you are a lawyer, please say so in order to separate the professionals from the amateurs). Thanks - CTY

[mam2009]

I actually think you and I see the facts exactly the same. We both recognize that we don't [[and can't) know exactly what happened. And we also are in agreement that Wafer was right to be alarmed and scared. You then rightfully point out that we know don't know enough to convict.

For a moment, I digress.

When growing up playing baseball, we used to have this informal rule, "Tie Goes to the Runner". If a thrown ball was caught at nearly the same time the runner touched the bag, rather than argue about whether he was safe or out, we just decided that all ties would go to the runner. It wasn't a perfect system, as the next argument became, "how close was close enough to consider it a tie?". But regardless, it set the framework for a resolution.

We have a similar rule in the law, that of reasonable doubt. If we are somewhat confident of wrongdoing but have enough doubt about it, a tie goes toward the defendant. Our system has decided that it is better to let guilty men go free rather than send innocent people to jail, and that is reflected in the rule of reasonable doubt.

I *do* agree with you [[Wesley), that there is reasonable doubt about whether Wafer acted in self-defense. I think it's very difficult to tell based on his testimony and evidence about what really happened. And, as you all already know, I thought the whole thing was an accident -- which is the opposite of self-defense.

But I believe that what follows below is where we differ, and I'm open to some legal education about whether or not I'm interpreting the law correctly.

As I outlined above, a "tie" goes toward the defendant.

However.

I believe that one legal exception here is in the circumstance of self-defense, especially with deadly force [[and even moreso, with a fatality). In this case, I don't believe that the prosecutor has the burden to prove

I believe the opposite. I believe that once one invokes self-defense -- especially with use of deadly force and an ensuing fatality -- the burden no longer rests on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was irresponsible. I believe that the burden now shifts onto the defendant to prove that the use of deadly force was justified.

I think that's why are on opposite sides of this. My general sense is that for the most part, we think it was a "tie". And yes, I agree that 99% of the time, the ruling on a tie should favor the defendant. But in this instance, I think a tie favors [[and should favor) the prosecution.

I don't want to waste any more time stating my basis for putting the burden on the defendant in a self-defense case, especially because in the end, legal scholars have already pre-determined that for us.

Legal Eagles out there, how is the law applied here? Am I applying the law incorrectly?

One way is that if you were only 50% sure that Wafer acted in self-defense, then reasonable doubt exists, acquit the man. The other way is that if you were only 50% sure that Wafer acted in self-defense, then it was Wafer who failed to meet his burden and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was justified. Convict the man.

You are the judge...please instruct the jury. [[And if you are a lawyer, please say so in order to separate the professionals from the amateurs). Thanks - CTY

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal...-of-proof.html

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

When a defendant is faced with criminal charges, the prosecution must prove their version of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that each and every element of the crime charged must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is proof that you would be willing to rely and act upon without hesitation in your own affairs. Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean an absolute certainty.

Burden of Proving Defenses

Ordinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. If the defense raised is an affirmative defense [[self-defense, entrapment, duress, etc.), the burden is on the defendant to present supporting evidence. An affirmative defense is one that doesn't challenge the facts presented by the prosecution but rather excuses conduct that is otherwise deemed unlawful.

The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. For example, in New York, the defendant has to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Compare this with Massachusetts where, after the defendant has satisfactorily raised an affirmative defense, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[mam2009]

"...the burden is on the defendant to present supporting evidence [[of self-defense). "

As I and several others have stated, the defendant in this case did not present EVIDENCE to support his affirmative defense. All he presented was his account. But his account didn't sound like self-defense to the jury. Rather, it sounded, to me, like an accidental [[and negligent) discharge. And since his self-defense wasnt supported with evidence, all ur left with is his account of shooting someone on purpose.

And a jury of his peers determined he killed Ms. McBride without a legally supported reason for doing so.

[mam2009]

Please, oh, please explain to me how a woman with no weapon and no break-in tools would break into a locked house??????????????

I wasn't home but a neighbor watched my ex girlfriend break through my door in less than five minutes. The screen door was locked and the steel storm door had a lock and a dead bolt. She had no breakin tools and was 5' 10 and weighed about 115. If you're desperate to get through a door or window you can, its not that hard.

Anytime a young person dies at the hands of someone older emotions are high. Even more so when they are of a different race. You're typing in bold and caps show this. I respect everyones thoughts and opinions on this tragedy, I really do. But it seems there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking and after the fact responses. Everyone knows whats reasonable and unreasonable and what should have been done and what they would do. But none of us were in his shoes at that moment. He reacted badly and it was stupid to open the door. But sometimes people react badly and do stupid things when they are half asleep and scared. Sorry if I feel some compassion for this guy. He was asleep and not looking for trouble.

And please don't bring the sprint car incident into this. I worked on a race team and we lost a driver.

First, if you're saying your neighbor said your ex-girlfriend broke through your exterior access door in five minutes, I call BS on your neighbor. Breaking into a locked house means, in my mind, breaking through the exterior access door, a window, a chimney or any other entry that provides immediate access to the living quarters of the home. Coming over or breaking through the locked fence doesn't count. Breaking the screen door or storm door off doesn't count. But if I or my family are in my house, as soon as I see a fingernail come through a broken window, see a non-police officer with a battering ram or a crowbar, etc. in the act of creating physical evidence [[i.e. prying marks or dents in the door or frame from a battering ram or their shoulder, etc.), I will shoot [[through the closed exterior access door) the center of mass and I won't stop shooting until they are down on the ground and no longer a threat. I would warn them first to give them an opportunity to turn away just in case they were confused about where they were or wanted a chance to keep breathing, but after that, its on.

One should not take shooting anyone lightly. It should be a last resort when you see no other possibility for defense. I don't think Mr. Wafer even had time to DECIDE to shoot. Self-defense is a decision. I THINK what he did was a REFLEX because he was startled and frightened of the unknown. But what I think will never trump what HE SAID about himself. Only he can know for sure. So if he says he DECIDED to shoot an unarmed woman BEFORE he had a chance to establish a REASONABLE belief that she was armed and dangerous [[via a verbal threat of imminent danger and/or the appearance or sound of a weapon or weapon-like object), then I have to go by his own recollection of the event. That's not Monday morning quarterba

Second, my putting words in bold or caps is my way of emphasizing words. It is no gauge of my emotion. An exclamation point would be more of a gauge of my emotions.

Third, I feel bad for Mr. Wafer in the same way that I feel bad for anyone I believe made a mistake that anyone in his circumstances could reasonably make. And I feel even worse for the family whose nineteen year old unarmed daughter is dead.

Fourth, I empathize with you for the death of the driver of your racing team. I really do. However, I do not believe that bars us from discussing the Tony Stewart incident in the context of this incident anymore than I believe that me saying my female cousin was a victim of gun violence should bar us from talking about Mr. Wafer's situation. I think the Tony Stewart incident is a good contemporary story that could be used to gauge the lines people draw for self-defense. Do you think its okay to kill an unarmed person because s/he is charging at you aggressively, but without a weapon? IF Mr. Stewart were to say he acted in self-defense, would you buy his self-defense claim just because he said so.

Fifth and final, the investigation, the trial, its all after the fact. Asking what a reasonable person would do is inherently Monday morning quarterbacking. Reasonable jurors SHOULD do their best to put themselves in the shoes of the person whose actions they are being asked to judge. They use the available evidence to see if it fits the narrative of the defendant when being asked to acquit due to self-defense. Claiming self-defense INVITED their scrutiny of his actions.

[Wesley Mouch]

Claiming self-defense INVITED their scrutiny of his actions.

And thus, we can see that Mr. Wafer was effectively convicted because of bad legal advise. Ironic that so many African-Americans were also so convicted.

[corktownyuppie]

And thus, we can see that Mr. Wafer was effectively convicted because of bad legal advise.

Definitely questionable legal advice. But we also don't know what kind of client Wafer was, either. He may have told his attorney that he refuses to do any jail time and pushed for a self-defense argument and rolled the dice with the jury.

The problem is that rolling the dice with the jury was the ultimate doubling down...I'm gonna chance it all on a really suspect self-defense argument. An argument that subsequently eliminates any possibility of claiming it was an accident.

If I was his attorney, I would've pushed for an [[involuntary) manslaughter plea with a fine, community service, long probation and 1-2 years in prison. Instead he's looking at a 2nd Degree Murder conviction.

I haven't read through the sentencing guidelines but I can't imagine that he'll spend more than 10-15 years in jail....certainly not life in prison. Regardless, whatever the final number turns out to be, it will certainly be a much higher number than had he just pled out.

Tragic on all sides.

The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. For example, in New York, the defendant has to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Compare this with Massachusetts where, after the defendant has satisfactorily raised an affirmative defense, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Interesting how close to the edge this case really is, that there exists the possibility that you might have to convict in some states but you'd also have to acquit in others. I wonder what the jury instructions were.

From wikipedia "Legal Burden of Proof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

There exists many standards of proof on the spectrum...

• 
  
  • 2.1.1 Reasonable suspicion
  • 2.1.2 Reasonable to believe
  • 2.1.3 Probable cause for arrest
  • 2.1.4 Some credible evidence
  • 2.1.5 Substantial evidence
  • 2.1.6 Preponderance of the evidence
  • 2.1.7 Clear and convincing evidence
  • 2.1.8 Beyond reasonable doubt
  
  
• 2.2 Non-legal standards
  
  • 2.2.1Beyond the shadow of a doubt

IMHO, and from my understanding of the case, the circumstances of the evening would meet threshold of being "reasonable to believe" that Wafer's life was being threatened. 4 am...knocking on several doors, etc.

But "reasonable to believe" is not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

After it goes to appeal, this may be one of those cases that becomes a landmark case on self-defense law, given that it is such an important issue in the law today.

Stay tuned....

[mam2009]

And thus, we can see that Mr. Wafer was effectively convicted because of bad legal advise. Ironic that so many African-Americans were also so convicted.

We cannot conclude Mr. Wafer got bad legal advice because all we KNOW is that he shot a human being on purpose according to his own testimony. He may have been given the best legal advice possible under those circumstaces.

And, no, there is no irony. Why do u insist on trying to compare or equate this case to guilty verdicts found in the cases of innocent black defendants? We don't KNOW he got bad advice. I assume u r referring to cases where black defendants have been wrongly convicted due, in large part, to biased juries, institutionalized racism within the judicial system and legislative indifference to it. I don't think those apply here.

[Pam]

Sentencing:

http://www.freep.com/article/2014090...porch-shooting

[brizee]

No glee here.

A child is still dead.

An old man will grow older, and may very well die in the American prison system.

His lawyer however is foul. Insinuate McBride was everything under the sun except a fellow human being.

[emu steve]

BTW, someone asked: What did Wafer do as an occupation?